Future of HS2?

[LNW-GW Joint]

HS2 was built to be a 225mph railway, therefore it needed to be very straight. If they had built it to the standard 186mph, they could have built a curvier line following existing corridors more closely.

The "standard" HS line is now usually 320km/h (the most recent LGVs in France).
Other considerations are whether the line is to carry freight (like HS1) or not (like LGV Sud Est) which affects gradient design.

 

[MarkyT]

The "standard" HS line is now usually 320km/h (the most recent LGVs in France).
Other considerations are whether the line is to carry freight (like HS1) or not (like LGV Sud Est) which affects gradient design.

It must make sense to include a little margin in the alignment design speed where possible to allow a higher speed in the future than is perhaps possible immediately. While there are no trains capable of achieving more than 360 km/h in normal service on the market today, sometime in the next two centuries or so such rolling stock is highly likely to become available. In the mid-1800s, Brunel and other early engineers built wide curves on main lines still used at 200km/h today, despite trains at the time of construction being unable to achieve more than around 100km/h.

 

[HSTEd]

It must make sense to include a little margin in the alignment design speed where possible to allow a higher speed in the future than is perhaps possible immediately.

Only if those margins do not fundamentally compromise route design.
If, as claimed, they make the M1 route untenable then that has major repurcussions. It's not a small change to allow nebulous future capability.

This desire for "future proofing" is a major driver of the current route design and thus the current debacle.

 

[JamesT]

You're underlining my point, I have looked but I can't find anything, so was anything really investigated when it should have been rather than as an afterthought to "prove" something that had already been decided? There's no point redesigning HS2 now as you well know, but if it really wasn't investigated properly when it should have been, ie early on, then there are lessons to be learned for the way we approach future projects. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but despite your assertions, not by you it seems

You don't appear to have looked very hard. https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...on-to-west-midlands-route-selection-and-speed is a document from 2012. It references previous work from 2009.

Review by HS2 Ltd of its route selection process, and route-related features, such as maximum line speed and the location of stations.

 

[HSTEd]

As I recall the original route analysis assigned enormous benefits to journey time improvements.

Which is why we ended up with a ludicrously high design speed and a line that goes almost straight from London to Birmingham (other than the approaches obviously) without much regard to what is in the way or the possibility of intermediate traffic centres.

 

[JamesT]

As I recall the original route analysis assigned enormous benefits to journey time improvements.

Which is why we ended up with a ludicrously high design speed and a line that goes almost straight from London to Birmingham (other than the approaches obviously) without much regard to what is in the way or the possibility of intermediate traffic centres.

It may well have done, but I think the main point here is that other routes were considered from the outset.

 

[HSTEd]

It may well have done, but I think the main point here is that other routes were considered from the outset.

Yes, routes may have been considered, but as in all things - Garbage In, Garbage Out. If the criteria used for consideration are suspect, then so are all the results generated by the consideration.

HS2 may well have believed that their route was the best one, but they were delusional if they ever believed they were going to get permission to run through the Chiltern AONB at its widest point on the surface.
Then again I also think their entire conception was flawed from the outlet.

But this thread is not, ultimately, about rehashing how we ended up here. It's about the future.

How do we salvage something from this disaster?

 

[SynthD]

What level of future proofing was there before Sunak? If I understand correctly, the aim was to run regular services at 330km/h, permitting catchup at up to 360, therefore the track is designed to be capable of 400. Sunak may have lowered the first two a little, I'm not sure. Only if the regular speed is considerably lower, then the curve radius would have an affect on the route design. But, as the line is being made, the land is bought north of that, the most that can be salvaged is exactly what the politicians passed into law, and the other bills HS2 has written and passed through committee at expense.

 

[MarkyT]

What level of future proofing was there before Sunak? If I understand correctly, the aim was to run regular services at 330km/h, permitting catchup at up to 360, therefore the track is designed to be capable of 400. Sunak may have lowered the first two a little, I'm not sure. Only if the regular speed is considerably lower, then the curve radius would have an affect on the route design. But, as the line is being made, the land is bought north of that, the most that can be salvaged is exactly what the politicians passed into law, and the other bills HS2 has written and passed through committee at expense.

The alignment is designed for 400km/h, where possible, but other rail systems will be more limited initially. That many curves are wider than strictly required for 360km/h is still a benefit as side forces and thus wear will be reduced. Systems such as track, electrification and signalling will be completely replaced a number of times over a notional life of (say) 200 years. Any one of those renewals will be an opportunity for an upgrade to whatever the state of the art is at the time.

 

[Shrop]

You don't appear to have looked very hard. https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...on-to-west-midlands-route-selection-and-speed is a document from 2012. It references previous work from 2009.

Thanks for the link, however did you look at my message from earlier today which said "Please could you point to studies that were done about the M1 corridor route BEFORE the investment of time and money into the Heathrow route, ie WELL before the official announcement of HS2 in January 2009?"

I'm not looking for work that was done AFTER the announcement of HS2 in January 2009, and yet you've highlighted a document that was produced over three years later. Let me reiterate, I'm looking for work that was done prior to commitments to a route running due west out of London. I would like to see a report showing an assessment of running to the M1 corridor without heading west out of London. Ideally I would also like to see an assessment of a route serving the north (Leeds/Manchester) as a priority, rather than running to the West Midlands as a priority, but I guess the latter part is asking too much ...

 

[JamesT]

Thanks for the link, however did you look at my message from earlier today which said "Please could you point to studies that were done about the M1 corridor route BEFORE the investment of time and money into the Heathrow route, ie WELL before the official announcement of HS2 in January 2009?"

I'm not looking for work that was done AFTER the announcement of HS2 in January 2009, and yet you've highlighted a document that was produced over three years later. Let me reiterate, I'm looking for work that was done prior to commitments to a route running due west out of London. I would like to see a report showing an assessment of running to the M1 corridor without heading west out of London. Ideally I would also like to see an assessment of a route serving the north (Leeds/Manchester) as a priority, rather than running to the West Midlands as a priority, but I guess the latter part is asking too much ...

The document I linked to is a review and mentions that many of the route option parts are recaps of previous work in 2009. 2009 was when HS2 Ltd was formed, so there cannot be any earlier work done by them. https://webarchive.nationalarchives...k/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/ has the initial report by HS2 showing the routes considered, some are East of Luton. I've previously linked you to the fact that Network Rail did studies of where upgrades to the UK network would be required in the future. This is what led to HS2 being formed with the remit to look at London to the West Midlands.

 

[Shrop]

The document I linked to is a review and mentions that many of the route option parts are recaps of previous work in 2009. 2009 was when HS2 Ltd was formed, so there cannot be any earlier work done by them. https://webarchive.nationalarchives...k/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/ has the initial report by HS2 showing the routes considered, some are East of Luton. I've previously linked you to the fact that Network Rail did studies of where upgrades to the UK network would be required in the future. This is what led to HS2 being formed with the remit to look at London to the West Midlands.

This document that you linked, what makes you think this was the start of HS2, when HS2 was just the first official naming of something that had actually been in development for some years prior to this?

Let me reiterate, how can you possibly say there cannot be any earlier work done, when the reality is that several years of work led up to this? Are you not familiar with Greengauge21? I asked that someone might provide reports of work done to investigate the M1 corridor route not just before HS2 was announced, but before that when Heathrow was still in favour, and in fact before that too.

My contention is that HS2 was developed around the remnants of a preferred route via Heathrow, and without due consideration to an M1 corridor route. Providing links to reports that were done some years later, which have all the appearance of being commissioned purely to underpin something that had already been decided, is not convincing, and simply perpetuates my scepticism about the choice of route. I would like to be proved wrong, I really would, but the report you linked doesn’t achieve that.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Would we save any money now (in 2024) by changing the route to follow the M1 roughly (?).

 

[Mgameing123]

Years of discussion to the point that it’s difficult to do a simple recap; but, broadly, what is the actual advantage of running into Euston as opposed to just OOC, given the potential for plenty of connectivity out of Old Oak?

Suggesting it’s imperative to run “into” London, given that nowadays you could stop just about anywhere in the region and have onward connections in all directions, seems rather antiquated?

At Euston your a short walk away from St Pancras where international trains to Europe depart and in general to be able to provide a relief for the West Coast Mainline trains must depart from a station enroute.

 

[JamesT]

Would we save any money now (in 2024) by changing the route to follow the M1 roughly (?).

No, construction is already well underway on the planned route. You could potentially stop work, but much of the money is already either paid out or contractually committed. You’re then back to the drawing board to design a whole new route. The M1 corridor is a longer route to Birmingham so will likely cost even more.

It may scream sunk cost fallacy, but the only sane route forwards is to make the best use of what is being built already. Go to Euston and have a connection to the WCML North of Birmingham that allows trains to use HS2 to relieve the WCML.

 

[Towers]

The continuing reports of just how much more money the Chancellor supposedly still needs to find by budget day still shouts pause Euston to me, just get the bare bones of HS2 operational and deliver the WCML capacity enhancements which are now the primary benefit of building the thing in the first place. However, recent noise from Whitehall does suggest that Euston is likely to be safeguarded, so we shall see!

 

[irish_rail]

I wonder how much money could be saved by scraping the Old Oak fast line platforms? I'd wager its a not inconsiderable amount (not to mention a potential lessening of disruption to GWR services over the next 5 years). I'm sure the very small percentage of people who would actually want to travel from Plymouth/Bristol/Cardiff to Birmingham via London (and not the direct XC route) would be prepared to change at Reading.

 

[Nottingham59]

How do we salvage something from this disaster?

Dig the tunnels to Euston.
Select whichever design of Euston allows for 16tph (eventually) - and just build in the cheapest way possible. In stages if necessary. Don't involve private developer capital - the value they will extract comes from the taxpayer.
Build the cheaper version of the Handsacre spur, onto the WCML slows
Extend platforms to 400m at Crewe, Preston, Warrington BQ, Carlisle
Build 2a to Hixon, with a chord towards Stoke
Build a chord to connect Delta Junction to the Birmingham-Derby line

Then safeguard the rest of the HS2 route - all the way to Manchester, Leeds, Wigan. Spend money on buying the properties, but then rent or lease them back out on fixed term leases, which all terminate in, say, 2040 (west) or 2045 (east) when the next phase of construction can start.

In the meantime, stop wasting money on marginal upgrades to the rest of the network which will become redundant when HS2 is completed.

 

[Towers]

Dig the tunnels to Euston.
Select whichever design of Euston allows for 16tph (eventually) - and just build in the cheapest way possible. In stages if necessary. Don't involve private developer capital - the value they will extract comes from the taxpayer.
Build the cheaper version of the Handsacre spur, onto the WCML slows
Extend platforms to 400m at Crewe, Preston, Warrington BQ, Carlisle
Build 2a to Hixon, with a chord towards Stoke
Build a chord to connect Delta Junction to the Birmingham-Derby line

Then safeguard the rest of the HS2 route - all the way to Manchester, Leeds, Wigan. Spend money on buying the properties, but then rent or lease them back out on fixed term leases, which all terminate in, say, 2040 (west) or 2045 (east) when the next phase of construction can start.

In the meantime, stop wasting money on marginal upgrades to the rest of the network which will become redundant when HS2 is completed.

Surely safeguard the Euston works but then mothball it?

The nation is struggling to afford this right now, big time. The main benefit of the whole scheme is WCML capacity, which is still delivered by reaching Old Oak for the time being. The notion that getting to Brum more quickly will revolutionise the UK was debunked long ago, it’s simply a case of redistributing the current Avanti flows at this point. Euston is an eventual ‘cherry on top’, but it can wait until the country isn’t skint!

 

[Nottingham59]

Surely safeguard the Euston works but then mothball it?

Yes. They do need to build the tunnels, and you could just safeguard Euston - but a version that is 16tph capable eventually.

But I expect it would be politically impossible to just leave Euston as a hole in the ground untouched for ten years before starting work.

 

[The Planner]

Surely safeguard the Euston works but then mothball it?

The nation is struggling to afford this right now, big time. The main benefit of the whole scheme is WCML capacity, which is still delivered by reaching Old Oak for the time being. The notion that getting to Brum more quickly will revolutionise the UK was debunked long ago, it’s simply a case of redistributing the current Avanti flows at this point. Euston is an eventual ‘cherry on top’, but it can wait until the country isn’t skint!

If it stays as OOC to Handsacre, the WCML benefits are reduced.

 

[Towers]

If it stays as OOC to Handsacre, the WCML benefits are reduced.

But the primary capacity release is presumably still there?

 

[Nottingham59]

But the primary capacity release is presumably still there?

Only for commuter flows south of Lichfield. The capacity through Colwich Junction is unchanged, so that every train on HS2 means one less WCML train through Colwich

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2024 ==

If it stays as OOC to Handsacre, the WCML benefits are reduced.

Which is why the two most urgent investments are extending platforms at Crewe and building 2a to Hixon.

Hopefully they will publish the BCR calculations for the various extension options at some stage. I would expect the Benefit-Cost ratios to be quite good for some. In fact, I would guess at the following

1. 400m platform at Crewe - very high
2. 400m platform at Preston - high
3. Extend 2a to Hixon - good
4. Extend 2a to Crewe - moderate

Everything else would be low value for money or worse, including Euston.

EDIT: Laying tracks at the Eastern end of OOC to allow trains to reverse round the back of the central platforms could be very high, also - depending on how long that arrangement would last.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I suppose I could spend a few hours searching on line, but so could you. If you are so determined to redesign HS2 feel free to do so. I’m out.

That sounds like a wonderful idea. My dad has a shovel, if a couple of guys on this thread want to join me we can build our own HS2 route along the M40 before Christmas.

Seriously though. I know that HS2 has been designed into next Tuesday, but honestly, the level of incompetence in the British state is now so endemic I can no longer trust any rigorous analysis the state does about anything. Look at lockdown, it was suggested not going into lockdown when we did would have been an act of murder, now even Chris Whitty said recently we might of overreacted. They wanted almost permanent lockdowns, wanted us to stop hugging etc. Thank God we didn’t listen.

The HS2 designers may very well be undeniably correct, or they may only be correct in the existing confines of a flawed framework. Personally I suspect the latter.

I remember having a discussion with my Mother about HS2 in 2010, who thought it was insanity on steroids to plough HS2 right through the Chilterns. Obviously that’s a “Clapham Omnibus” opinion, but it’s proving to be correct.

If getting 300mph trains in the future was a concern. Surely that only matters if you’re going all the way to Glasgow. At that point, it probably would have been best to route HS2 via the M40 and build a new route to Scotland along the flat and empty M11 corridor to Edinburgh.

 

[eldomtom2]

In the meantime, stop wasting money on marginal upgrades to the rest of the network which will become redundant when HS2 is completed.

I think the history of HS2 has shown the flaws of this approach.

 

[MarkyT]

A problem is that services exclusively from OOC may prove not as popular as existing Avanti services, which will likely still be departing from Euston via the WCML. If, for a prospective journey, the combined total time for getting to OOC, changing onto HS2, then going to Birmingham (say) is little different from the fastest times available on the WCML, then many punters may stick with the historic route especially if it's cheaper. For some in West London and the adjacent Thames Valley area, clearly OOC will be more convenient than Euston, and the Heathrow connection via HEX or EL will be available from day one so the trains would certainly not be empty, even if all the central London travellers stuck with the Pendolinos.

EDIT: Laying tracks at the Eastern end of OOC to allow trains to reverse round the back of the central platforms could be very high, also - depending on how long that arrangement would last.

I doubt that will be possible while the tunnels are being bored as the east throat area is likely to be filled with material handling facilities for spoil extraction and tunnel segment delivery. Regular operational use is also unlikely while the tunnels are being fitted out, as it's likely track laying and other infrastructure trains will need to access them to bring in materials and machinery. Electrification may not be safe to liven up during such construction, so I think use of emergency reversing/stabling sidings in the throat or tunnels is unlikely. If there's a considerable time between the tunnels being completely finished and Euston station opening, then perhaps the finished OOC East throat and tunnels could be used for a while, but, similarly, it's likely the tunnels will be the primary access route for materials to the station construction site. Maybe one bore might be allocated to stabling/reversing at the OOC end while the other is used for construction access to Euston.

 

[HSTEd]

A problem is that services exclusively from OOC may prove not as popular as existing Avanti services, which will likely still be departing from Euston via the WCML. If, for a prospective journey, the combined total time for getting to OOC, changing onto HS2, then going to Birmingham (say) is little different from the fastest times available on the WCML, then many punters may stick with the historic route especially if it's cheaper. For some in West London and the adjacent Thames Valley area, clearly OOC will be more convenient than Euston, and the Heathrow connection via HEX or EL will be available from day one so the trains would certainly not be empty, even if all the central London travellers stuck with the Pendolinos.

Why would the classic line be cheaper in that scenario?
It is likely cheaper for the railway that everyone that can move to HS2 would move to HS2.
Given that Avanti services consume significant subsidy, we could expect that a lot of the Avanti services would be replaced by services, even if they are from Old Oak.
Certainly there would be a major driver for fares to try to pressure people to move.

 

[MarkyT]

I remember having a discussion with my Mother about HS2 in 2010, who thought it was insanity on steroids to plough HS2 right through the Chilterns. Obviously that’s a “Clapham Omnibus” opinion, but it’s proving to be correct.

If getting 300mph trains in the future was a concern. Surely that only matters if you’re going all the way to Glasgow. At that point, it probably would have been best to route HS2 via the M40 and build a new route to Scotland along the flat and empty M11 corridor to Edinburgh.

As much 250mph infrastructure as possible is necessary to get that Glasgow/Edinborough journey time down and completely trounce the domestic air competition. It doesn't necessarily mean new route all the way, but building 2A to Crewe at full speed and onwards preferably to around the Preston area (avoiding the significant slowdown for the curves and platforms at Wigan in the original Golbourne scheme) would allow trains already doing the maximum passing Birmingham to keep on at that speed for as far as possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2024 ==

Why would the classic line be cheaper in that scenario?
It is likely cheaper for the railway that everyone that can move to HS2 would move to HS2.
Given that Avanti services consume significant subsidy, we could expect that a lot of the Avanti services would be replaced by services, even if they are from Old Oak.
Certainly there would be a major driver for fares to try to pressure people to move.

AFAIK, Avanti subsidy is a recent post-COVID phenomenon. Clearly, strategic price differentials could incentivise travel via OOC, but consider the bad PR if it was demonstrated a particular journey was slower that way and the previous alternative had been removed. What is likely to happen is that remaining fast services from Euston will get additional intermediate stops but overall numbers of trains won't change dramatically.

 

[Nottingham59]

A problem is that services exclusively from OOC may prove not as popular as existing Avanti services, which will likely still be departing from Euston via the WCML.

Sure, but the way I see it is that Old Oak Common is just three stops away from Tottenham Court Road, same as Euston. TCR to Acton Mainline is just 12 minutes now, so to OOC will be around 11. TCR to Euston on the Northern is 4 minutes. So only 7 minutes slower. From Liverpool St, it's 17 minutes to Euston by the Underground, according to TfL with a walk from Euston Square. Same as Liv St to OOC by the Elizabeth.

Old Oak Common to Curzon St will be around 45 minutes via HS2, 36 minutes faster than Avanti. I think most premium traffic will choose to go via HS2.

 

[poffle]

Why would the classic line be cheaper in that scenario?
It is likely cheaper for the railway that everyone that can move to HS2 would move to HS2.
Given that Avanti services consume significant subsidy, we could expect that a lot of the Avanti services would be replaced by services, even if they are from Old Oak.
Certainly there would be a major driver for fares to try to pressure people to move.

A HS2 train routed onto the WCML will have less capacity than a Pendolino. The HS2 trains are supposed to be 2 x 200M trains on HS2 with single 200M trains going onto the WCML where the platform lengths are shorter.

If they could run Pendolinos to Birmingham Interchange off the there might be a benefit to starting some of the Scottish Pendolino trains from Birmingham Interchange with a cross platform change for passengers from London. ( DB use Frankfurt Flughafen Fernbf as a major interchange point on the ICE network.)

But AFAIK the infrastructure wasn't designed to do that.